February 22, 2014

The moral victory of the hard men of the Ukrainian opposition in Kiev in trampling on the most recent European-negotiated compromise solution and successfully driving the elected President out of the capital comes not just from dying bravely, but from winning.

It's worth recalling what happened on Thursday before it gets tidied up. Right after dawn, the fighters opened passages through their defensive barriers and charged the terrified riot police, who opened fire on them. Scores of the attackers were shot down, but enough crossed the no man's land to capture dozens of police and drive the rest back. This combination of sacrifice and triumph provided the moral basis for tearing up the latest compromise and leaving the fighters' bands in charge of the streets. I doubt if either dying or winning alone would have sufficed.

Eventually, the politicians and bankers will retake control, but it's worth remembering the events as they happened.

"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history that has any other factor ..."

In the end, the future is decided not so much by those who break the pieces but those who pick up the pieces.

Mobs may bring down the system, but they don't know how to run it. They'll grow tired, and someone will come to pick up the pieces.

We'll have to see who picks up the pieces. In the long run, the mobs in the streets will go back to the same homes, same lives. They will have won not for themselves but for others who will pick up the pieces and rule as the new boss.

"Eventually, the politicians and bankers will retake control, but it's worth remembering the events as they happened."

Why? If Vicky Nuland's puppets take and the oligarchs retake control, as I think is likely, this will not be worth remembering at all. It will all have been in vain. The usual suspects could have peacefully rigged the next elections instead. And it's not like Yanukovich wasn't letting them steal. Those Right Sector yobs will have been played for the fools that they are. Used as tools.

We don't have to pick a side to root for. Both may be swine (that's my bet). Both may be OK, or it may be unknowable of meaningless. The Cathedral may be supporting the right side by accident, or even -- seriously! -- by intent. Once upon a time, it consistently supported Batistas over Castros, bad South Vietnams over much worse North Vietnams, and iffy Pinochets over bad Allendes.

Not lately, I know. But anything is possible, and Obama and Kerry and McCain are deeply stupid, and deeply ignorant, men. They're so incompetent and clueless, their intentions are almost irrelevant.

Lucky for me, I don't have any reason to pick a side here. You don't either. I recommend you refrain.

It has been interesting to observe during the recent unpleasantness that the West retains its capacity for supporting any SOBs who constitute a handy stick to beat the Russkies with. Of course, sometimes this creates an Osama bin Laden, but "tomorrow is another day," as the American philosopher Scarlett O'Hara said.

This seems like an inspiring narrative for about two seconds. Then you realized that fighting in a revolution where you don't have both the will and the ability to impose your will upon victory means you're a sucker who dies for some cheap adulation.

The Bolsheviks had it right--we seize power and impose communism. The Khomeinists in Iran had it right--we seize power and we impose Sharia. Pinochet had it right (morally too, unlike the other two examples)--we seize power and crush communism by doing whatever it takes. What is Right Sector's plan? They have none.

Come May 25, the revolutionary fervor will have worn off and the equally corrupt Yulia Tymoshenko will be elected president.

What is interesting to me about the alt-right is the hatred of elites common among many. It is perfectly legitimate to criticize an elite for not having the interests of the people at heart and to demand they do better, but what society has functioned without elites? The sentiment borders on utopianism, on expecting human nature to miraculously change.

If it isn't, I'm not sure what pieces Nuland is going to pick up. Right not the only other real player looks to be the Russian aligned bloc.

Look, I see lots of people making comments, but it isn't really useful unless you

1) Really interested in the Ukraine, and have done a lot of reading.2) Have been there and know the country and the people there.3) Are Ukrainian, Russian, Polish, Moldovan, whatever and just know the area and the players in general.

Just reading news reports and watching the BBC isn't going to tell anyone squat about what is going on. It's good for telling you so many people got shot or something like that. But as far as what is going on behind the scenes, well it's totally useless.

What is interesting to me about the alt-right is the hatred of elites common among many. It is perfectly legitimate to criticize an elite for not having the interests of the people at heart and to demand they do better, but what society has functioned without elites? The sentiment borders on utopianism, on expecting human nature to miraculously change.

What's interesting to me about your comment is that you find "elite" a more interesting component of "elite treachery" than "treachery."

How would America react if protesters stormed gov't buildings after an elected official was voted into office?

The most recent dust-up I can recall was a tax protest in Alabama about 5 or so years ago. There were suitably horrified accounts in the national media about legislators running for their offices after a window was smashed.

I believe any Americans who engaged in a protest of this vehemence against the US government would be completely massacred. I don't think there would even be any corpses left.

And what happened after the American Revolution? President Sam Adams? President Patrick Henry?

Adams became Governor of Massachusetts and Henry became Governor of Virginia. Under the Articles of Confederation there was no President, and George Washington served two terms after the Constitution was ratified. I wouldn't consider Adams and Henry punching below their weight as Governors. How many Presidents can you have?

Patrick Henry and Sam Adams were awful examples, although the point he was making was excellent, given that they were as elite as can be. Henry owned 78 slaves and a huge plantation. Adams was obviously a Boston Brahmin.

"White tribalism is a direct result of the ethnocentric conception of a nation based on bloodlines. The tendency of European nations to fragment is a result of this flaw in European thinking on what constitutes a "nation."

It's not a flaw. It's a fundamental rule of biology. It's in your interests that the people who have power over you are as related to you as possible.

.

"What is interesting to me about the alt-right is the hatred of elites"

Straw man. We have a malign and hostile elite who are also completely incompetent except when it comes to self-enrichment and nepotism.

.

"The Ukrainian Nationalists vs. the Putin Worshippers."

Or to put it more honestly: the neocons and their puppets vs Putin and his puppets.

A general rule of thumb for anyone who finds this stuff boring: always side against the neocons. You'll be right nine times out of ten.

How would America react if protesters stormed gov't buildings after an elected official was voted into office?

Yes, isn't it great how our government always counsels foreign governments in the process of being overthrown not to respond with force, yet the US Army trains to respond to an uprising by Tea Party terrorists?

Responding to a revolution with sufficient force has so far worked out pretty well for Assad.

"Straw man. We have a malign and hostile elite who are also completely incompetent except when it comes to self-enrichment and nepotism."

Are they completely incompetent? Most of us live pretty well, by both contemporary standards and historical ones. They're certainly malign, and things are certainly getting worse, not better. But our elites seem to be doing a good job of managing the period of relative comfort before excrement hits the rotating blades.

Anonymous Blogosaurus said...>>How would America react if protesters stormed gov't buildings after an elected official was voted into office?<<

Obviously the US left-media would be cheering on the police as they gunned down Tea Party protesters, while they would probably support Occupy Wall Street protesters at least to the extent of condemning police violence. I think though in the latter case they would be concerned about the far left (classical Marxist Left) taking power in a violent coup, knowing that the real Left is not always kind to Left-Liberals (cultural Marxist Left). They'd want to ensure that their own guys took power.

"A general rule of thumb for anyone who finds this stuff boring: always side against the neocons. You'll be right nine times out of ten."

Yes. In all the conflicts that I've been able to research the neocons were the bad guys. I don't have an unlimited amount of time, so I can't research every issue. Assuming that the bad guys in any conflict are the ones supported by the neocons and the NYT (very little difference) seems like a good rule of thumb to me.

Are they completely incompetent? Most of us live pretty well, by both contemporary standards and historical ones. They're certainly malign, and things are certainly getting worse, not better. But our elites seem to be doing a good job of managing the period of relative comfort before excrement hits the rotating blades.

"Competent": foreseeing and preventing the stuff that results in the shit hitting the fan.

"Not completely incompetent": Used to describe an incompetent elite in the period before the shit hits the fan.

The neocons are only one segment of the elite. It's not as if they run all aspects of foreign and domestic policy down to the lowest level. There are other competing factions. The U.S. is also being slowly suffocated by bureaucratic mission creep.

It's remarkable how Steve has been so objective and neutral about the Ukraine v. Russia Big Important Revolution For Make Benefit Nationalism--you don't get the sense he's flacking for one side at all. Those New York neocon nogoodniks always hyping some meaningless desert tiff with zero American national interest at stake -- on the back of corny jingoist propaganda ginned up by scrawny 120-pound weaklings who should find a football team to root for, if they weren't such weaklings -- could learn a lot from Sailer's dispassionate and measured pronouncements on internecine Slavic struggle against the backdrop of hella rioting n' stuff, transpiring in that ancient region with which he's so exquisitely acquainted, not just via decades of academic research but as a leading duolingual Russokrainian dramatist whose avant-garde plays have been staged regularly from Lviv to Dnepropetrovsk. Responsible citizenists about 5,000 miles away can only overlook his discerning blogonalysis at their own peril. Guy's practically the new Arnold Toynbee.

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.